Create Perennial

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds that the tool returns a Created Perennial object, confirming it is a mutation and providing return structure. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects on related data, or required permissions. With annotations providing basic safety info, the description offers marginal added value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and structured with an 'Args:' section listing parameters with one-line meanings. It avoids fluff but the parameter list could be integrated more naturally. Still, every sentence serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameter meanings and states the return type (Created Perennial object). It does not explain error conditions, validation rules, or behavior on duplicate entries. The description is adequate for basic invocation but lacks depth for robust decision-making.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is low (14%), but the description adds a brief meaning for each parameter (e.g., 'UUID of the parent field' for field_ID). This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, enabling an agent to understand the purpose of each parameter beyond name and type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a perennial plant record in the SIA PerennialsService. The verb 'create' and resource 'perennial plant record' are specific, and the tool name aligns with sibling tools like sia_create_field, distinguishing it as a creation tool for perennials.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create a field vs a perennial). It does not mention prerequisites, preconditions, or conditions that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool over sibling creation tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.